Video

Thank you from Brazil!

This dude behind that lame-looking mask is the most serious case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect that I have ever seen in my life... What a puddle of puke! I feel really sorry for those kids attending that "class".

Wonderful summary thanks! ❤

Nothing says The Last Man like wearing a useless mask 😂

This is nonsense and a very BIASED and INACCURATE analyzation of what Nietzsche believed. You're spending more time being deeply offended by his philosophy than learning from it. You're a prime example of why he had such views on Christianity and morality.l Allyou did was prove his points, not that he needed your help to do so.

2:54 given all that we’re seeing in the world today , especially in the west, Devlin was ahead of his time.

Thank You!

ANY THOUGHTS?....................1. Hume surrenders to the understanding that entities are distinct in what they are and by that, that which they are not. A square is distinctively that which it is for its characteristics (squareness) and that which it is not, possessing no characteristics of a circle (circleness). 2. That an entity can be that which it is distinctively and not other things is due to its “distinctive” physical characteristics or physicality. E.g., the billiard ball in his analogous refutation of the deterministic nature of cause and effect is distinctively just that, a billiard ball and not an apple or beach ball or the like. 3. He thus, by definition, accepted that entities are that which they are by the assertion of their form and function (characteristics) into materiality (quantum mechanics validates this unequivocally). Were this not so, he could not have appealed to them that they would be employed in his propositions. 4. He also, by definition, accepted that entities are material, i.e., physical, defined by their physical characteristics (a ball is round and not square, etc.) or they could not be considered at all and could not be participants in his propositions. That he specifically chose billiard balls for the players in his analogy demonstrates his acceptance of this (above) as a recognition. 5. By this he submitted to the understanding that motion for being intangible, could NOT be a characteristic of the billiard ball which is moving but a phenomenon in the context of consideration, it moving toward a stationary billiard ball that it might cause it to move when struck. Motion of the billiard ball in this context is only a phenomenon of concern with the billiard balls physicality or characteristics. 6. Given the above, we know analytically that the motion of the billiard ball had to have been imparted to it by the force of another entity of which it was concerned when it struck the billiard ball. 7. Thus, by that same means by which the motion of the billiard ball was imparted to it by a prior entity also effected by motion, it would be imparted to the stationary billiard ball by the moving billiard ball. 8. We are able then to induce that the stationary billiard ball would in fact move if struck by the first because of the nature of motion as opposed to that of the physicality of the billiard balls for we know analytically that motion cannot be a part or characteristic of the physicality of the billiard balls but only an imparted phenomenon. So if it was imparted to the first billiard ball by it being struck, so too would it be imparted to the second when being struck.

Well articulated

WHAT DO YOU THINK? PART OF SOMETHING I WROTE WHICH I KNOW NEEDS POLISH..... Another fundamental aspect of the nature of “being” which is important to our discussion, i.e., of materiality, is that of cause and effect. Denied as being discernable or discoverable by the empiricists and their followers whose ranks included some quite brilliant like Russell, Hume, the master of the master of that school claimed that one could not truly know any connections between two cause and an effect, arguing instead that what we perceived as such was simply a product of experience. Given the absurdity of this I will offer only a limited discussion to dispense with such notions, though my approach might seem somewhat tedious due to the intricacy of the argument and thus the dexterity required. One example given as a demonstration of Hume’s philosophy with regard to cause and effect was that of a child who had only ever been given toys made of soft cotton. One day after receiving a rubber ball as a present which he dropped on the floor, he marveled that it had bounced, it having been beyond his experience. The parents who observed his reaction themselves expected that the ball would bounce but they too could only consider what were their expectations, also a product of experience, they having no true knowledge of any connection between the cause, i.e., the ball falling and the effect, i.e., the ball then bouncing. I think it clear that there were clear signs of the connections between the two. In a more general version of that above, we know without any study or calculations that there cannot be motion absent an object (absent the object moving). This is an absolute analytical truth of materiality. In the example of this, the object being a ball, there is nothing about its characteristics as a such (its “ballness” which I use for convenience) of which motion is a part. Motion could not be observed at all if this were not so. Motion is not a “thing”. It is not tangible but rather a phenomenon of the context in which the ball exists and the state of affairs in that context by which the ball is affected, a state of the ball or of the complete material entity of “balllness” (physicality) relative to other things or existents, addressing only the external relation of the ball to those other things and not of concern to the ball’s internal aspects. The ball is the same ball in all respects in any point along that progression of its motion relative to those other things, illuminating the external relation of motion as a process to its object in that it is progressive, involves an object and thus is not self-sustaining nor self-sufficient. If motion is not a “thing” and thus cannot be a component or characteristic of the ball’s “ballness” (or physicality), and must be external to that “ballness”, it must by definition then have been imparted to the ball from an external source. In other words, if the ball is affected in its state or condition by motion and that motion is not of the ball, it must necessarily have been imparted to the ball in some manner apart from the ball (cause and effect is implicit here as necessarily so). Again, we know that motion is of concern specifically with the physicality (form and function) of the ball. As stated in that above, there can be no moving ball or motion of a ball unless there is first, a ball. If there is first a ball then this is by assertion of its physicality, i.e., by its imposition of its (form and function) ballness (as opposed to the treeness of trees and rockness of rocks, etc.). That which asserts the ball’s ballness is that physicality defining its specific ball like configuration. In a moving ball, it is this which is the ball, which is that which moves. Therefore, motion is of concern and of consequence only of the physicality of the existent in question, in this case the ball. If motion is of concern only with and of physicality, it is then by definition governed by that. That a ball can only “be” by the assertion of those characteristics of ballness and that its existence can only be maintained by rules which also define that initial assertion then all that which is of concern with those characteristics, such as motion is, must be obedient to those rules for motion is of the ball’s ballness and that is subject to those rules. A ball will be that which it is now as well as then (in the future) by those rules, barring any interaction with other existents or it could not be a ball as distinct from other existents to begin with. Were it not capable of this (continued existence as a ball), Hume himself could not have had the continuity of context in which to posit his refutation of cause and effect or even the continuity of concepts by which to define it. Note that in his proposition: 1. the ball (a billiard ball for example) is continually a ball, as opposed to another thing as with the billiard table which is equally constant in being that which it is. So too is a second ball thus demonstrating that constant conditions of objective reality exist about which to be able to initially formulate such a proposition. Additionally, that context which confines our discussion here within which his proposition was formulated, possesses constant boundaries and structure, providing him with terms and concepts necessary for its definition. By this we see that these rules of reality govern. Therefore, if a ball is moving, it is of the characteristics of its ballness and it cannot merely cease to move absent the interaction of its physicality with other existents as governed by those rules which sustain them. Motion then cannot merely cease to be “with” the ball once acquired for again, it is about the ball’s physicality, which is constant for all the reasons stated above and not about the qualities of motion as a function of some self-sufficient nature (for motion has none, it is only about the physicality of the object of which it is of concern and that is governed in its initial existence and continued existence by rules of physical reality). If the ball then, begins to loose motion, it can only be for its interaction with other existents of physicality (i.e., the billiard table or ball 2 which it eventually contacts) whose existence is also governed by those rules mentioned above, also about which motion can be of concern. Motion then can only cease to be an effect on ball 1 for its contact with other existents such as ball 2 to which that motion would then be imparted. Cause and effect then are “not” as purported by Hume and are knowable by our observations of the interrelations of material existents.

If human freedom is just a feeling, how can god send people to hell based on that ?

Thanks a lot for this great explanation everything is more clear now !!

Nice video....

What does this mean? United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously overturned accounting firm Arthur Andersen's conviction of obstruction of justice in the fraudulent activities and subsequent collapse of Enron.

This is a very accessible explanation. Thank you!

Redpill Reich sent me here

Nietzsche outlined what exactly transpired and is 100% accurate

nice video. I read Rawls then Nozick just after. Many years ago!

That’s helpful, thanks.

WHERE DOES IT SAY THIS

Affirmative action is a joke..

Good work no joke

Convenience is definitely a two-edged sword. Convenience does appear to enfeeble us. When we don't get instant satisfaction, we go into tantrums like toddlers. Walking and bike riding brings me much more pleasure and sense of well-being than driving, and anticipation is often more satisfying that getting or having what I want. Smart phone fasts are sweet bliss. I prefer not to look at my smart phone more than once a week. I almost wish we didn't have them, though there are times when they are helpful, such as on long road trips.

The nose detects what the eyes oversee, what the eyes wish not to see

Thank you from India

Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith has been in the public domain for some time and can be downloaded from Project Gutenberg and searched. The printed book can cost you $15 and take a lot of effort to search. Has Smith's "Invisible Hand" been used as a propaganda tool for decades since most people would never read WoN? Smith used the word 'invisible' six times but only once as "invisible hand". It is really curious that we hear about the 'invisible hand' so much. Smith used the word 'education' EIGHTY TIMES. We are not told about that. Search for "and account" and you will find multiple instances of "read, write, and account", not "read, write and arithmetic". Double entry accounting was more than 300 years old when Smith wrote Wealth of Nations, but 50% of Brits were illiterate and public schools did not exist in 1776. The United States could have made accounting/finance mandatory in the schools since Sputnik. Wouldn't that have helped everyone best serve their own self interest? But we do not hear the people who propagandize us about the "invisible hand" advocating mandatory accounting because that might make their invisible rip-offs more difficult. Adam Smith never used the word 'depreciation' in WoN. He mentioned paper money being depreciated one time. Marx wrote about 'depreciation' 35 times in Das Kapital, sometimes regarding the depreciation of machines and sometimes of money. Marx even mentioned Adam Smith 130 times though not much about education. Consumers did not buy automobiles, air conditioners, televisions and microwave ovens before 1885. Marx died in 1883. But it's OK! Our brilliant economists do not talk about the depreciation of under engineered consumer trash today either. Every time you buy a replacement the purchase is added to GDP. What about NDP? Oh sorry, when do you ever hear an economist explain NDP? That's OK too, they only depreciate the Capital Goods and ignore the depreciation of consumer junk anyway. Wealth of Nations has probably been in the public domain for a very long time but cheap computing did not make it available in Project Gutenberg until 3/17/2001. Milton Friedman died in 2006. Was Friedman giving us the straight dope on economics or treating us like a bunch of dopes for decades?

Good presentation. Not sure why the sound is so low compared to czcams.com/video/qWrhEARupCg/video.html .

WELLLL NOW, IFIN THIS AINT A LOAD OF ROTTEN DOOHDOOH WORTHY OF A GOODLY FLUSHING....I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS, YET I DO KNOW. THEY CAN NOOOT OVERPOWER HUMANBEINGS AS ANGELS OF GOD N OF DEATH SATAN ADAM ARE TO BE RULED N NOT TO RULE THUS MUST HAVE PERMISSION TO INTERACT LESS THE PUNISHMENT BE WORTHY TO REMIND THEM THEIR PLACE AS OUR HEAVENLY FATHER WILLS. ONLY THE COWARDLY BASTARDS OF SATAN ADAM WOULD SPEW SUCH LIES N DECEPTION N STANK BREATH YOU DEMONTURDS!👊👊👊🌹🌞🛡🗡🌋🔥 GOD IS N CHRIST JESUS IS IN HIS WORLD N EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO HE N NOOOT TO THEE YE DOERS OF INIQUITY.🌹🌞💪👑🗡

Hi, this topic is really interesting and this video is great. You are very consise and well-spoken. I want to know your thoughts on if you think that public reason is would make us less democratic in deliberation?

First

Professor! Thanks for sharing the lecture. The examples give to explain the distribution of resources were useful, specially about the cello. The point I was wondering was about the criteria Aristotle privileged, the moral virtue. How can we connect that with the concept of Eudaemonia, the strive for excellence? Thanks

Thanks!

Great video!

You give the examples of the problem of induction as being of a past-future structure, but this problem could also apply to the sensed/not sensed, the empirical & its extrapolation in the physical, which by many is believed to continue to exist when not experienced

It was predicatable that as a Christian you would bring up sex as an example and the deadly sin of gluttony. The concept is much more simple: if you believe in a perfect afterlife, you are not motivated to get the best out of this one. Moreover as a Christian, you are bound by a set of often draconian and life draining rules to get to the next world. Nietzsche was a admirer of the Greek god Dionysus who reminded us how dangerous it was to be out of tune with our real self. Also of Hericlitus who 'sought myself' to find the truth other than looking outwards for some received wisdom. I'm not saying elements of Christianity are not good - far from it - but as the ultimate truth in its entierity it fall far short.

The Christian Bible is Hate Speech against the Jews and the source of thousands of years of persecution.

guy just clutch for my exam tomorrow

Nietzsche was a Nazi, thats why all the nazis love him. Nietzsche was having sex with his sister...

Great lesson. Nietzsche is a hypocrite. He wants the strong to prevail- survivors of the fittest in a cruel world. And when he recognizes that it was the Jewish ways of peace won, he cries "its not fair"

I wish this video emphasized Aquinas' objections to Anselms ontological argument more

Thank you very much for this video! It's helped me to understand better Rawls's point of view

This helped me a lot in preparing for my seminar on Rawls theory of public reason, thanks!

😇

Hello Sir the video is very informative, could you help me with the reference ( the name of the book), Please.

Good Content!

We are Devo.

Are they free? And what happened to brook

We can't observe with our senses a necessary connection between the cue ball striking the 8 ball (A), and the 8 ball moving (B). According to Hume, if we can't sense a necessary connection between the two events, than that connection does not exist in experience. All we see are two events A and B- we don't see a third event (C) or necessary connection.

Nice video men👍🏾

thank u so much sir